brainpolice2

[overmind25]

I agree with you if you are characterizing InTheEndIWasRight's position. Most of us do not get a chance to vote. His argument that it would makes things worse is possible but I do not agree, especially not in the long run.

[oldhacks]

how do you propose we defeat big business and retain our right to free enterprise other then by boycott? it's a lot easier when you can just go vote on the shit. rather then having to protest and write letters that no one reads. and preaching to everyone to boycott the same places and all that. its a Hell of a lot easier when you can just Vote to get rid of it.

[overmind25]

By having a philosophical shift in the long run is really the only way it can be maintained by ending support for these ideas. However, in the short run and others (including yourself) that want to take part in statist reformist measures that increases liberty (hopefully) then that is your choice (but in the end with direct democracy it will require education anyway) but direct democracy is not the end goal if one values liberty or an end to political, economic, and social imperialism.

[larma7]

"direct democracy is not the end goal if one values liberty or an end to political, economic, and social imperialism."

-- EXACTLY!!! Direct Democracy is just a tool to bring us to a stateless society. it's a weapon against authoritarianism!

[oldhacks]

exactly. well put. a weapon against authoritarianism. because its taking the power away from the individual to use however he sees fit and giving it to the people for them to disperse how they see fit. its how you defend yourself and your village from fascism.

[overmind25]

Fascism is not freedom of the individual. What a complete propagandistic conflation. Fascism was the combination of state and corporate (state charter) power to suppress anything that got in the way of nation-state and military worship. Taking away justly acquired property from an individual is authoritarian unless that individual engaged in violating the autonomy of another.

[oldhacks]

if you put an individual in Charge of a large mass of people then it is fascism. thats where individualism has it's faults. because if you don't organize and promote equality then you end up getting an individual taking power over the many.

[overmind25]

I am not for putting an individual in charge of a large mass of people without their consent. Organization is fine and promoting equality (depending on what you mean) is fine. However, just because you do not have complete equality does not mean there will be power abuse automatically. Someone can provide a service better than another and not use their money to oppress others.

[oldhacks]

equality. everyone having a right to work, live, play on fair ground. nobody can just go around buying everything up. everybody has to chip in equally too. for the roads to travel on, cops to catch rapists and murderers, prisons to keep rapists and murderers, judges lawyers juries for fair trials.. you know "Equality"... the shit they sold you as a kid. its a real thing even if they're not delivering it. its a bait and switch.

someone can and someone could but they don't.

[overmind25]

Yes they do. If you think every person who makes more money than your "average US citizen" (sometimes legitimately and other times illegitimately in the context of our current unfree society) uses that money to bribe politicians or others to abuse people then you are not examining reality. They are those who do (who should be opposed) and those who do not.

[oldhacks]

you wrote that whole paragraph just to accuse me of "not examining reality". or knowing the truth.

[overmind25]

If you say every person who makes more money than the average citizen bribes politicians or others to oppress people then you are not examining reality. It is true that many have and it is also true that many have not.

[oldhacks]

every person that makes more then the average person does everything in their power to insure that they keep their advantage over the rest of their community by human nature. for better or for worse. thats just the way we're built. we look after our own. thats why when you get said societies to engage in discussions about their surroundings things happen more smoothly and quickly then if you just sit back and let what ever happens happen. laws are nodes of encouragement and methods of production

[overmind25]

You are being so general. If you mean keep their advantage by being productive so they can create and have more wealth then yes (which there is nothing inertly with that).  Productivity creates more wealth for the individual and benefits the vast majority of others as well. Economics is not a fixed pie. It grows. However, if you mean that everyone of them uses their money to bribe the government or others to use aggressive violence against others than that is a fantasy.

[overmind25]

*(which there is nothing inherently wrong with that)

[oldhacks]

dude? what do you want from me? I speak in plain english. I'm talking from where I'm standing. not some college campus. its the streets that need fixing and you guys are all having some insane brainiac fest and not seeing whats happening out here in the real world. this aint no pizza delivery virtual transmogrification of thought. this is heavy shit thats happening all around me and when you say anarchy while I'm surrounded in a city full of homeless ppl yelling at trees? it troubles me dude.

[overmind25]

I am not on a college campus either. It is summer. I did not learn about anarchism in college either. That is something I came across on YouTube as I did with Gravel after the debates. I can empathize with that and how it troubles you. You should make social justice a centerpiece of what you advocate (and you do). However, just don't use it and that feeling to cloud other positions. I admire your care.

[oldhacks]

haha. I came across anarchism from the dead kennedies and black flag and mike watt and sonic youth. and books like the anarchist cookbook and zines upon zines and people in the streets causing trouble and getting away with it in the name of Liberty! It was from youtube that I met mike gravel and learned about how we don't HAVE to be a bunch of rambling thieves. we can fight the system HEAD ON. by fighting for a national ballot. a referendum. ANYTHING. its fucking Bullshit dude.

[oldhacks]

the second someone has power their first inclination is to abuse it. without a moral code to guide us we're all money grubbing vindictive liars and thieves that will do anything to get ahead and stay ahead. its human nature. when we all come to a public agreement is when we make progress.

[overmind25]

Yes and the majority may and may not abuse their power as well. Is that my main reason for opposing majority rule over what is tied to others labor? No. Any system can have abuse within it. What are the principles, values, and pragmatic points of a system. That is why I chose anarchism/individual autonomy.

[overmind25]

Non Consensual Direct Democracy allows for institutionalized and sanctioned murder, theft, and kidnapping. It does not create as much as an incentive to be involved in politics economics etc and is not founded on non aggression (anti imperialism).

[oldhacks]

there can be no non consensual direct democracy. either we all have a say or no one has a say. it's one or the other.

[overmind25]

That is a very binary view but in a way it is phrased pretty broadly. Yes we all can have a say and decide what arrangements we personally want to have with others. There such a thing as involuntary direct democracy. Someone doesn't want to put themselves and what is tied to their labor under a direct democracy's jurisdiction and being forced too when they committing no aggressive violence would be involuntary direct democracy.

[oldhacks]

what do you mean? thats the way people act. I've been out there dealing with people all my damn life. as a musician thats one of the things you learn is that you cant trust people. you have to watch the door to see how many people come in no matter how well you know the owner cuz he'll try to jip you even though you're good friends. thats just the way human nature is. and we get even more vicious when times are tough. we're animals man. you can't deny it. and without order we act foolishly.

[overmind25]

I am not against order. That is the way some people act often and I have encountered them as well. However, they are not the majority of the people I encounter. You argument against human nature however does little justice to justify the state as my Video "Evil Human Nature Is not a Coherent Argument for the State". Simply because the state will be made up of humans, whether by a minority or a majority who will have the legal privilege of plundering, kidnapping, and murdering.

[oldhacks]

order is only established by majority rule. individual order is nonbinding.

[overmind25]

If you aggress against another that is not order in my view.

[oldhacks]

are you talking preemptively or instructively?

[overmind25]

What do you mean?

[oldhacks]

they take your shit no questions asked.

they take your money with you being allowed all kinds of say

[overmind25]

I oppose whether you have a tiny say or no say if not did not consent to the organization to begin with.

[oldhacks]

of course you do. but what if you had to make a choice.

between business - no say

or governance (ballot initiatives) some say?

[overmind25]

We have already been over this. Those are not the only two choices and I already told you I think ballot would be better. We discussing anarchism and direct democracy, not corporatism which neither of us support.

[overmind25]

*We are

[oldhacks]

of course those are the two options.

either you live under business rule or you live under government rule. you can pretend that the government and business don't exist and go trade rabbits for a living like my grand ma did. but the older you get the more you're going to learn that you're safety depends upon the stability of your surroundings.

[overmind25]

My god more of this bullshit. I have never denied the importance of surroundings or ever advocated seclusion. Having just propped up big business, majority sanctioned rule over what is not tied to labor, Representative government rule, or a combination are not the only choices.

[oldhacks]

how are they not the only choices?

without socialism you can't have any boundaries to sanctify your form of anarchy.

[overmind25]

The only boundry is non aggression.

[oldhacks]

you can't force one group and give another group a get out of jail free card. you either have enforcement on all or none. if you're going to live as a democracy that is.

you cant forcably dismantle the military industrial complex while saying to a less threatening hazard that they're compliance is voluntary. and the military industrial complex is OBVIOUSLY not going to -voluntarily- give away its profits.

[overmind25]

No one is saying they must. There acts were and are aggressive so taking away their stolen goods would be defense.

[oldhacks]

well how do we address them if not by law. because if we address them by law but the laws are to be voluntarily enforced based on each individuals willingness to comply then it's Meaningless. the pentagon wouldn't even waste their time reading the bill if it wasn't going to be enforced. because what would be the point?

[overmind25]

The Pentagon has committed aggression. There is no need to ask its permission for anything. It existence is based on theft and aggression. Non aggression would be if you will the Common law. As long as you do not commit aggression you are free to do and form the political organizations with others that you wish too.

[oldhacks]

voting isn't begging for permission. it's mandating law. law that's backed by the threat of force. be that force from the people themselves by violent revolution or be it as a people united with their police force.

[overmind25]

I am saying under anarchism there is no need to ask. The Pentagon cannot exist as it does know because it has committed aggression as an organization, it is funded through theft, etc. It is to be homesteaded. The same goes for corporations that have had corporate welfare from the state (taxpayers).

[oldhacks]

its not statehood thats causing corporations and government to coexist and finance each other. its our inability to challenge them.

they write the laws for themselves. if you just stand mute in the law department as an anarchist then you're wasting your opinion by not registering your demands.

you always leave how your means of combat. I've asked you like 3 times now. How do you abolish malicious state funded projects if not by law?

[overmind25]

By taking them over because they have committed aggression.

[oldhacks]

and how do you take them over?

[overmind25]

Organizing, educating, and ultimately by defensive force.

[oldhacks]

what better way to defend yourself then by having the right to mandate Law?

[overmind25]

Sure over yourself and those who have consented to your form of organization. There is no need to mandate Law against the Pentagon because it has already committed aggression and violated negative liberty under anarchism.

[ChannelMikeG]

Whether formally or informally, you are effectively making a law by educating and organizing people to homestead the Pentagon.

[overmind25]

It depends how you define law. I don't care about semantics. The Common law would be non aggression (negative liberty). The Pentagon has commited aggression so homesteading would be justified since it returns to the commons after it intitation of force.

[ChannelMikeG]

I thinking about law in the sense of its top definition in dictionaries:

"the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision"

Are you saying there is already a widely accepted law to homestead the Pentagon? I don't think most people would agree with that. Personal conclusions from guiding principles don't make law alone on merit.

[overmind25]

Well it would be opposed because it commited aggression under an anarchism. The Common law of non aggression was violated.

[ChannelMikeG]

What would be opposed and by whom? By whom: anarchists who agree with you or the people of the United States? By what: the law you are essentially proposing to overtake and homestead the Pentagon or the Pentagon itself? Are you calling an act of defense an act of aggression now? This doesn't make any sense to me.

[overmind25]

Oldhacks and I were assuming an anarchism. It is an act of defense from the Pentagon's previous aggression.

[ChannelMikeG]

If you convince the people of the United States that the Pentagon is an unlawful entity, and consequently, the people overtake the Pentagon and homestead it, then you have effectively created a law that was enforced after its acceptance (i.e. enactment). It may not be a formal law as we know law today, but you cannot deny that such actions represent creation and enforcement of a law in this hypothetical society where these actions take place.

[oldhacks]

that's law making.

[overmind25]

Sure as long as you are not making a law that requires a positive obligation.

[oldhacks]

well lets go back to the beginning. do you want to abolish the military industrial complex ? that require a positive obligation on their behalf. do you want to just wait and allow the military industrial complex to voluntarily disarm and dismantle all of their factories that are dispersed all over the country?

[overmind25]

No it does not.  The military industrial complex has committed aggression by engaging in aggressive wars and plundering the taxpayers. Homesteading after it is forcible taken down would be defense.

[oldhacks]

well then whats to keep another one from popping up again if you dont make the practice illegal?

[overmind25]

Because it already would be illegal under an anarchism. That is implied because for the military industrial complex to exist it requires coercion which would not be anarchist. It would be the initiation of force. If you and others want to declare it illegal then that is fine. However, under an anarchist idea of no rulers this would already be understood and any attempt to recreate these involuntary tyrannies would rightful be met with defensive force.

[oldhacks]

and again. it's not "asking". it's "demanding" big difference.

[oldhacks]

and if you put the individual in place over the society then thats creating the opportunity for an individual to rise to power over the majority because the majority aren't unified. so its either empower the society as a unit or empower the individual to make choice for you. our form of governance is what naturally emerged. direct democracy is the next step on that pathway. anarchism is going backwards.

[overmind25]

Society is just a collection of indiviuals. There is no indiviual over society. The indivual just has autonomy over what is tied to their labor. The majority can organize. You are using the naturalistic fallacy and it is not going backwards if you do not value slavery.

[oldhacks]

you're missing a key ingredient man, the culture. the culture is what binds said societies. cultures represent their senses of decency and morality. which naturally manifest into laws. so if we're a part of a society, and we're gonna have laws dictated by the current STATE of affairs then we might as well be involved in the process of what laws we feel are appropriate as individuals working within the confines of that society.

[oldhacks]

when you involve 2 people they will want equal amounts just by human nature. if you give one person an advantage he will take it. by human nature. now you've got 300,000,000 playing by those rules.

[overmind25]

I don't know what human nature you are speaking about. Don't throw your preference over all humans. I do not want equal amounts of everything if someone provides a service or a does a job better or worse than me by taking from them at the barrel of a gun against their will.

[larma7]

Be nice to Brainpolice2. He aint bad. :) He has called out Confederalsocialist on many occasions for his bull-shit.

I agree with you though. Anarchists tend to take a bizarre look at the "state". They claim people look at the state as something mystical, but anarchists do this too. Anarchists see the "state" as an always evil mythical monster. I keep trying to tell them that government does not cause tyranny . . . PEOPLE do! Government is just a tool, and it can be used for good and bad.

[overmind25]

I and others see the state as an "evil mythical monster" because it is

an aggressive violent monopoly or near monopoly of certain services over land not tied to labor or over individuals who have not consented which, by the general public conception, does so in a manner not considered to be legitimate for other groups or individuals to engage in.

If you do not value theft, murder, and kidnapping then it makes little sense to support the state.

[ChannelMikeG]

The state is much bigger than the state. ;)

[oldhacks]

what about state police who capture murderers, thieves, and kidnappers? that kind of behavior happens without state funding as well ya know?

[overmind25]

The monopoly of defense without consent and demanding funding is already an act of theft. Killing one who resists state aggression is a form of murder. Throwing someone in a state cage who has not committed aggression which the state police do is an act of kidnapping. Dealing with murderers, theives, kidnappers, etc is important because they are aggressors as well as the state.

[larma7]

First you say there is nothing mystical about the state, but now it is a monster??

To say that everything the state has done is evil is false. It has provided education, defense and welfare to people in need. Yes, the means of funding are wrong, but the outcome it provides is not always bad.

[overmind25]

Nothing mystical in that it is able to provide a service that no human can because it is just made up of humans. It is monster in my view because of the reasons I gave earlier. The outcome is not always negative in every case but it has engaged in those negative acuities to a large extent and as you said the way it protects illegitimate property and then steals from legitimate property is in itself negative.

[oldhacks]

representative government can never be used for good. it doesn't work. look at every single country in the world. all their representatives are total scum bags. its a failed form of governance. then you look at places like switzerland and california and france and you see how when the people are in charge shit stays more fair in the over all picture. we made it illegal for wal mart to open shop right off the high way. people 1 / wal-state 0.

[larma7]

oldhacks: I never was arguing for representative government. You should know that I am against it.

[oldhacks]

yea I know. just saying. rep gov is a no win situation. always feel the need to make that clear.

[TheNihilAdvocate]

Direct Democracy, for what I understand, requires 'clerks' that make up the ballot initiative. Can't these clerks be just as easily swayed by bribes.

[TheNihilAdvocate]

*initiatives

[oldhacks]

the clerks don't issue initiatives. they just collect the data needed to see what issue the people want to vote on and in what order. they have no authority to propose laws as clerks.

[TheNihilAdvocate]

You wouldn't want to debate brainpolice2. He is perceived as smart simply because he abstracts the words in his videos with a bunch of isms and tarians. Furthermore, he uses the No True Scotsman fallacy when it comes to anarchists way too often. I highly doubt any of his viewpoints translate into real world changes to his lifestyle.

[oldhacks]

I don't give a shit. I just want to hear his thoughts on why we shouldn't be allowed to mandate law as a democracy. debate? conversation? whatever.

[brainpolice2]

Well, you're trying to debate me on the pretense that you already know what my position is, based on what other people's positions are. That seems pointless to engage.

[oldhacks]

no I'm not. you're obviously intelligent so I want to know what your thoughts are on direct democracy which are now being called anarcho-syndicalists.

[brainpolice2]

I don't merely use "isms" and "tarians", I speak about very specific concepts and theories that are involved in libertarian and anarchist discourse.

[oldhacks]

well great. lets talk about the importance of laws and how to enforce them.

[oldhacks]

the point of this video is just to show that I do want an honest discussion about the shit.

[TheNihilAdvocate]

Your videos are littered with all kinds of terms (isms and tarians), that you make no effort to clarify. This requires your audience,who are ignorant of the terms, to look them up. Although this style is preferable to stodles' condescending mockery, it adds an air of pretension to your videos. This use of "anarchist jargon" shows that you target only existing libertarians and anarchists. Therefore, I conclude you care more about coming off as smart than actually getting your message heard.

[JackBrindelli]

of course, i forgot, exploitation is far better when it's on a smaller scale.

nah, just kidding punkoutlaw, i have no idea what you stand for, please do elaborate, what are your specific beliefs, capitalism good or bad for individualism etc.

[oldhacks]

I guess clint eastwood is full of shit too. did you not watch "gran torino"?

serve the state? when did I say that? the state should serve you. you should own the state. you should control the state. as an individual.

I didn't say you were defending wal mart. I said that other kid was and that you're connected. You said wal mart uses the state to commit extortion. well I'm trying to explain to you that wal mart IS the state and if they are our government then whatever money they extort is a tax

[JackBrindelli]

i dont think all anarchists are inclined to love big business, im pretty certain anarcho-communists don't exactly fetishise money.

maybe you've only been talking to anarcho-individualists rather than anarcho-collectivists. alternatively you could be right and i'm talking crap again.

[oldhacks]

almost all the most popular ones are anarcho-capitalists. which is really werid to me cuz I grew up being an anarcho-socialist. fighting for the little guy. these guys are fighting for the wealthy. makes no sense to me at all. it's like "have you ever heard a dead kennedy's song in your life?" you're supposed to rebel Against capitalism!

[JackBrindelli]

I dunno, i dont like to make assumptions about people, but I would say it's likely to be a class thing, those who do well out of capitalism only see problems with the state, they don't know about the problems it creates for the poor, they've never experienced poverty for themselves. they become anarcho-capitalists, perhaps they think its the best way to conserve their life-style as it is. (personally i think it'd end up with a de facto state, what with private security firms for the wealthy etc)

[overmind25]

Oldhacks you will find that most of these "popular anarcho capitalists" do not support the existence of corporations, land monopolies, patents, etc. They will even say a lot of the wealth that many have is illegitimate. You are just making up their positions and arguing against one that is easy to argue against. They are not defending big business or anyone else. They are trying to defend everyone and what is tied to their labor from being robbed.

[overmind25]

*not defending just big business or just anyone else.

[oldhacks]

while they don't support such measures they connect those with laws that are actually beneficial to society.

I'm not making up their positions. I'm going by what they've told me directly. Jr bacon chee said it could be statism or it could be wal marts just great at what they do. thats what he said. I'm not making up Shit, fucker.

they blame the state and the state alone. and thats the problem. they dont see how democracy is how you defeat the shit. instead they're doing what I did as a kid.

[overmind25]

Yes and he said that he did not know enough about Wal-Mart and had to look into it more. He even said though if they overall are helped by the state (by robbing tax payers and getting special grants (which of course they do)) then he would oppose them. You are completely mischaracterizing his position.

[oldhacks]

no I'm not dude. quit straw manning me. he said that there were two options. he gave them the benefit of the doubt at first. which means by instinct / at first glance/ he sees no problem with wal mart being EVERYWHERE. anytime ANYTHING is EVERYWHERE it's statist. be it Roads, or wal marts. what we need is the right to choose which state funding is progressive and which is out dated or down right corruption. get rid of the laws we dont need and keep and make laws that we do.

[overmind25]

Yes if Wal-Mart (which it doesn't) provided those services by homesteading underused land and acquired those materials through voluntary trade to provide what a certain amount of people wanted then it would be fine. However, that is not that case. He had to look into it more.

[oldhacks]

can you ever be serious?